Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Pensa Pharma, SA, against the decisions of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to invalidity proceedings between Ferring BV and Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring A/S and Penso Pharma concerning the successful registrations by the latter company of a figurative mark 'pensa' and a word mark 'PENSA PHARMA' as Community trade marks. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, challenging his immigration detention between May 2008 and August 2012, excluding a two-month period of bail. The Administrative Court did not accept that the claimant's conduct in presenting himself first as one identity and nationality, later to change to another had principally been a symptom of mental illness. However, by December 2011, the Secretary of State had had a public law duty to release the claimant, as it had become quite clear that she would not be able to effect his deportation within a reasonable period. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The claimant was a transgender prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection for sexual offences she had committed when she was an 18-year-old male. She sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's failure to provide the opportunity to do work specifically linked to sexual offending. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had not breached: (i) her public law duty; (ii) the duties under arts 5 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights; or (iii) the duties under ss 19, 29 and 149 of the Equality Act 2010. 

Insurance – Payment protection insurance. In 2006, the claimant company transferred the non-life component of its payment protection insurance business to the first defendant company under a scheme, which was sanctioned by order of the court (the order). The issue was whether a liability for alleged mis-selling of PPI policies underwritten by the claimant company fell within the ambit of the definition of 'transferred liabilities' in the scheme effecting the transfer, which had been sanctioned by the court the order), and whether liability had been transferred to the first defendant company under the terms of the scheme. The Chancery Division held that on the true construction of the scheme, The 'transferred liabilities', which had been transferred to the first defendant by the order did not include any liability for the alleged mis-selling of PPI. 

Contract – Breach. The claimant university claimed a sum of money in respect of payment due under the validation agreement, pursuant to four invoices rendered in 2012 to the defendant business school. By a letter dated 20 December 2012 the university purported to terminate the validation agreement on account of the defendant's LCB's failure to pay the moneys due under the invoices. LCB denied that the invoices were properly rendered under the validation agreement and asserted that the university's purported termination of the validation agreement was ineffective and was itself a breach of contract. There was also a counterclaim for suspension of the university of LBC's validation. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant was entitled to judgment in respect of the claim and the defendant was entitled to judgment on the counterclaim. 

Specific performance – Order. The claimant sought specific performance of a settlement agreement with the defendant. The defendant claimed that it was entitled to rescind the settlement agreement for misrepresentation. The Commercial Court, in allowing the application, held that the alleged representation had not been made. Further, the claimant would have taken all further steps necessary but for the fact that the defendant had made it clear that it would not perform its part. Accordingly, the defendant's ground of objection to an order for specific performance was not made out and it was appropriate for such an order to be made. 

Costs – Assessment. Following the dismissal of a single charge of conspiracy to defraud on which the Serious Fraud Office (the SFO) sought to try the six applicants (the dismissal application), the matter came before the court for assessment of costs. The Queen's Bench Division made the assessments pursuant to, amongst others, s 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. 

European union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Bora Creations, SL (Bora), against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to invalidity proceedings between Beauté Prestige International, and Bora regarding the registration by Bora of the word 'essence' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Lithomex ApS (Lithomex) against the decision of the Fifth Board of appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to invalidity proceedings between Glaubrecht Stingel GmbH & co. KG and Lithomex concerning the successful registration by Lithomex of the word sign 'LITHOFIX' as a Community trade mark. 

Contract – Breach. The claimants purchased land and a business from the defendants. They brought proceedings, claiming that the defendants had made misstatements regarding the flow of sewage on the land, and had breached their contract. The Chancery Division held that the claims were made out as a matter of liability in relation both to misrepresentation and, to the extent of the business sale agreement, in breach of contract.